Brief American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

 

Nos. 14-5 14-556, 56, 14-562, 14-562 , 14-571 and 14-574 IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States JAMES OBER OBERGEFELL, GEFELL, et al.,  AND BRITTANI BRITTANI HENRY, HENRY, et al.,  Petitioners, v.

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT DEP ARTMENT OF HEALTH, HEA LTH, et al.,  Respondents. ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE  UNITED STATES COURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT  AMICI CURIAE BRIEF

FOR THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS LA WYERS AND A ND ITS MICHI MICHIGAN, GAN, OHIO AND KENTUCKY CHAPTERS CHA PTERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

IANA  R AIMI D BRIAN C. V ERTZ ERTZ*  A MERICAN MERICAN A CADEMY  CADEMY   OF M ATRIMO  ATRIMONIAL NIAL  L AWYERS 437 Grant Street, Suite 501 5 01 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 471-9000 [email protected]

Counsel for Amici Curiae

*Counsel of Record 258249

A

(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859

 

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Page

 Table of Contents. Table Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Tablee of Cited Authorities Tabl Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Interest of Amicus Curiae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Summary of Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3  Argument  Argu ment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 I.

The State DOMA laws deny same- sex families the benefits of laws that enhance stability.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 stability  A. The Th e St at e DOM A la laws ws st ig ma matt iz e children of same-sex unions and deny them the protection of legal recognition for both their parents.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 B. The State DOMA DOMA laws deny legal protections for established established parent-child parent-chi ld relationships. relations hips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 .7 C. The State DOMA DOMA laws deny legal protection to same-sex families famil ies when a partner dies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 D. The State DOMA laws deny same-sex couples the benefit of laws that protect families when couples couples separate. . . . . . . . . .15

 

ii Table of Contents  Page

II. Even in intact same-sex households, households, the State DOMA laws deny legal protections for family financial security.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

 

iii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

 Page CASES

 Attorn ey General v. Civil Service Commission   Attorney (unpublished), 2013 WL 85805 (Ct. App. Mich. Mich. 2013) 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . .21  Bassett v. Snyder , __ _F _F.. Supp. 3d___, 3d__ _, 2014 WL 5847607 (E.D. Mich, Nov.. 12, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Nov  Birch v. Birch, Birch, 463 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8  Bottoms v. Bottoms, 457 S.E.2d 102 (Va. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 .3  Burchell v. Burchell Burchell, 684 S. S .W.2d 296 2 96 (Ky. (Ky. App. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d A.2 d 571 (Md. (Md. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3  Davis v. Flickinger , 674 N.E.2d N.E.2d 1159 (Ohio (Ohio 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5  Doles v. Doles,  848 S.W.2d 656 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . .10

 

iv Cited Authorities  Page  Estes v. Titus, Titus,   751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21  Estes v. Woodlawn Woodlawn Memorial Park, Inc.,  780 S.W.2d 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . .14  Evans v. Steelman, 970 S.W S.W.2d 431 4 31 (Tenn. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 .6  Harvey  H arvey v. Harvey, 680 N.W N.W. 2d 835 (Mich. 2004) 20 04) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8  Heltzel  H eltzel v. Heltzel Heltzel, 638 N.W N.W.2d 123 (Mich. ( Mich. Ct. App. 2001) 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . 10  Hollingsworth  H ollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3  Hunter v. Hunter  Hunter , 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9, 10  In re Adams Adams , 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 473 N.W.2d  In re Adoption Adoption of Doe, 719 N.E.2d N.E.2d 107 (Oh. (Oh. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 .7  In re Anjoski, Anjoski,  770 N.W N.W.2d 1 (Mich. ( Mich. Ct. App. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

 

v Cited Authorities  Page  In re D.C.J D.C.J.., 976 N.E.2d N.E.2d 931 (Ohio (Ohio Ct. App. 2012) 2012).. . . . . . . . . . . . . .9  In re Mark Mark T. T., 154 N.W N.W.2d 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 8  In re Marr Marriage iage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3  In re Mullen, Mullen,   953 N.E.2d 302 (Ohio 2011 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9  In re Perales Perales, 369 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9  In re Shelby Shelby L.B., No.. M2010-00879No M2010-0 0879-COACOA-R9-PT, R9-PT, 2011 WL 1225567, Tenn. Ct. App 2011 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 .7  In Re the the Marriage of M.S. v. D.S., No.. SC94101 No SC94101 (pending)(Missouri (pending)(Missouri 201 2 015. 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .3  In re Thompson, 11 S.W S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. Ct. Ct . App. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . .10  Levy v. Louisiana , 391 U.S. 68 (1968). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24  McGuf  fin v. Overton, 542 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). . . . . . . . .10, 22

 

vi Cited Authorities  Page  Michael H. v. Gerald D.,   Michael 109 S. Ct 2333 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 .6  Mullins v. Picklesimer ,  Mullins 317 31 7 S.W.3d S.W.3d 569 5 69 (Ky. (Ky. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 .9  National  N ational Pride Pri de at Work v. v. Governor of Michigan,  748 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21  Perry v. Schwartzenegger , 704 F. F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010 2 010)) . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 .2 2  Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.3d S.W.3d 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10  S.J.L.S. v. T.L.S.  S.J.L.S. T.L.S., 265 S.W.3d S.W.3d 804 80 4 (Ky. (Ky. Ct. App. 2008) 20 08) . . . . . . . . . . . . .6, .6 , 7  In re Mark Mark T. T., 154 N.W N.W.2d 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 8  Stanley v. Illinois , 405 U.S. 645 (1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9  State ex rel. M.L.G. v. v. Montgomery, Nos. 12AP-13, 12AP-401 12AP-4 01 (Ohio (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2012), appeal denied, 981 N.E.2d 885 (Ohio 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10 Tkachik v. Mandeville,  790 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

 

vii Cited Authorities  Page United States v. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. 2675, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2013) (2013) . . . .7, . 7, 19, 19, 20 Varnum v. Brien Br ien, 763 N.W N.W.2d 862 (Iow (Iowa a 2009) 200 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer  G rasmeyer , 675 N.W N.W.2d 847 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) 200 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 .9 Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972) (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Whaley v. Cnty. of Saginaw,   941 F. F. Supp. 1483 1483 (E.D. ( E.D. Mich. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Whitaker v. Whitaker , 957 S.W S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. ( Tenn. Ct. App. App. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 STATUTES

1 U.S.C. § 7 (2012) (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 .3 26 U.S.C. § 1041 1041 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 . 16 26 U.S.C. § 2056 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 29 U.S.C. § 1055 1055 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3) (2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 38 U.S.C. § 1115 1115 (2012) (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 . 20

 

viii Cited Authorities  Page

38 U.S.C. § 1781 1781 (2012) (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 38 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012) (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 . 20 38 U.S.C. § 4101 4101 (2012) (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 38 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1317, 1158 (2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 42 U.S.C. § 1395i-2 (2012) (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 . 12 42 U.S.C. § 402 (e) (e),, (f) (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 . 19 42 U.S.C. § 402(g), (d) (d) (2012) (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 42 U.S.C. § 660 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . 17 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396p(c)(2), 1396p(a)(2), 1396r-5(f)20   (2)( (2)(A), A), 1 1396r-5(d)(3 396r-5(d)(3)) (2012). (2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 42 U.S.C. §§ 402 (b), (b), 402(c), 402(c), 426-1, 426 -1, 1395i-2 1395i-2 (2012) . . . . .19 Defense of of Marriage Act, Act , 1 U.S.C. § 7 (2012) (2012) . . . . . . . . 18 Ky. Const. § 233A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 72.425 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Ky. Rev. Stat Ann. §§ 403.211, 403.215 (West,   Westlaw through through 2014 2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . 17

 

ix Cited Authorities  Page

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 140.080 (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 201 2014) 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 141.180 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 .2 0 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18A.150 (2), (3) (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 201 2014) 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 311.1925 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.750 (West, Westlaw through the end of the 2014 2014 legislation) legislat ion) . . . . . . . . . .12 Ky. Rev. Rev. Stat. Ann. A nn. § 346.05 34 6.050(1)(b 0(1)(b)) (West, Westlaw through the end of the 2014 2014 legislation) legislat ion) . . . . . . . . . .14 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 367.97501 (West, Westlaw through the end of the 2014 2014 legislation) legislat ion) . . . . . . . . . .14 Ky.through Rev. Stat. Ann. 2014) 2014) . . . §. . 381.050(2) . . . . . . . . . .(West, . . . . . .Westlaw . . . . . . . . . . .21 . 21 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 391.030 (West, Westlaw through 2014 2014 legislation) legislation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11, . 11, 12 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 392.080 (West, Westlaw through 2014 2014 legislation) legislation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 . 11 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.190 (West, Westlaw through the end of the 2014 2014 legislation) legislat ion) . . . . . . . . . .15

 

x Cited Authorities  Page

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.200 (West, Westlaw through the end of of the 2014 legislation legislation)) . . . . . . . . . .15 . 15 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.210 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.213 (West, Westlaw through the end of of the 2014 legislation legislation)) . . . . . . . . . .16 . 16 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.270 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 .8 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.270(2) (West, Westlaw through end of the 2014 legislation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Ky. Rev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 406.011 4 06.011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 .6 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.130 (West, Westlaw 6   through 2014 2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 199.500, 199.520 (West,13  Westlaw through 2014  Westlaw 2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.005, 402.020, 402.040, and 402.045 (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 403.270, 403.280, 403.290, 403.300 403.3 00 (W ( West, Westlaw through through the end of the 2014 201 4 legislation) legislation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

 

xi Cited Authorities  Page

Mich Comp. Laws §§ 700.2202, 700.2301 (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 201 2014) 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 205.202 205 .202 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 . 13 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 206.311 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 .2 0 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 38.1024(1), (8) (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 201 2014) 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 418.331 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 . 12 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.17a (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 201 2014) 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . 17 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.18 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Mich. Comp.2014) Laws through 201 4) . . Ann. . . . . .§. 552.23 . . . . . . (West, . . . . . . .Westlaw . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Mich. Comp. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 557.204 (W ( West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 557.71 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 . 21

 

xii Cited Authorities  Page

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2922(2)(a) (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 2014 2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.2102 70 0.2102 (West, Westlaw    through 2014 2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.3206 700.3 206 (W ( West, Westlaw    through 2014 2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 . 14 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.24 (West, Westlaw    through 2014 2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.51 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 .6 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.2(c) (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.25(1 722. 25(1)) (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Mich. Comp.2014) Laws through 201 4) . . Ann. . . . . .§. 722.27 . . . . . . (West, . . . . . . .Westlaw . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 780.766(4)(h) (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 2014 2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 . 14 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 552.19, 552.23, 552.103 (West, Westlaw through 2014) . . . . . . . . . . .15 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 552.603, 552.27 (West, Westlaw through 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

 

xiii Cited Authorities  Page

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 700.2402  2404 (West, (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 201 2014). 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 722.23, 722.24 (West, Westlaw through 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 722.27(1)(c), 722.23(d)-(e)   (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 722.27(a), 552.23, 552.601 (West, Westlaw through 2014) . . . . . . . . . . .15 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§700.5207(1), 700.5209, 700.5219 700. 5219 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through th rough 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . .23 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §333.2824(6) (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 201 2014) 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.2855 (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 201 2014) 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 . 14 Mich. Const. art. § 25 and Mich. Comp. Laws  Ann. § 551.1 (W1,est, (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014) 2014 ) . . . . . . . .4 .4 Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11 and Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3101.01 (West, Westlaw through 2014) . . . . . . . . . . .4 Ohio Rev. Code Ann § 3109.03, 3109.05 (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 2013-201 2013-2014) 4).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Ohio Rev. Code Ann §§ 2705.02, 2705.03, 3123.01 to 99 (W ( West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2013-2014 2013-2014)) . . . . . . . . . 17

 

xiv Cited Authorities  Page

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 145.45, 92 (West, Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Oh i o R ev . Co d e A n n . § 2 1 0 5 . 0 6 ( W es t ,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 130th 130th GA (2013-2014) (2013-2014))) . . . . . . . . . .11 Oh i o R ev . Co d e A n n . § 2 1 0 6 . 0 1 ( W es t ,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 130th 130th GA (2013-2014) (2013-2014))) . . . . . . . . . .11 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2106.15 (West, Westlaw through 130th GA (2013-2014)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2108.09 (West, Westlaw through the 130th 130t h GA (2013-2014)) (2013-2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Ohio Rev. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2108.50(A), 2108.81 2108.81 . . . . . . . . . 14 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2108.81 (West, Westlaw through the 130th 130t h GA (2013-2014)) (2013-2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2125.02 (West, Westlaw through the 130th 130t h GA (2013-2014)) (2013-2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2743.51 (West, Westlaw through the 130th 130t h GA (2013-2014)) (2013-2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.171 (West, Westlaw through the 130th 130t h GA (2013-2014)) (2013-2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.18 (West, Westlaw through the 130th 130t h GA (2013-2014)) (2013-2014)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

 

xv Cited Authorities  Page

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.21, 3119.01 (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014 (2013-2014)). )). . . . . . .16 . 16 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.821 (West, Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014 (2013-2014)) )) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 . 15 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3107.03 (West, Westlaw through 130th GA (2013-2014)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.051(A) (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 201 2014) 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.051, 3111.03(A)   (1 (1)) (West, (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Ohio Rev. Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.03 3111.03 (a) (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.95 (West, Westlaw through 130th GA (2013-2014)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4123.59 (West, Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014 (2013-2014)) )) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 . 12 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5731.05(C)(4)(West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014 (2013-2014)). )). . . . . . .13 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5901.08 (West, Westlaw through the 130th 130th GA (2013-2014) (2013-2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. An n. §§ 3109.04, 31 3109.051(D 09.051(D)) (W ( West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 130th GA (2013-2014) (2013-2014))) . . . . . . . . . . .8

 

xvi Cited Authorities  Page

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§145.45, 145.384 (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 130 130th GA (2013-2014) (2013-2014) . . . . . . . . . . .21 . 21 Ohio Rev. Rev. Code Sec. 5747.08(E) 5747.08(E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 (S.598, 112th Cong. (2011)) and H.R. 1116, 112th Cong. (2011)) (2011 (2011)) . . . . . . . . . .2 Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 26 U.S.C. § 414(p) (2012)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 (2012 . 16 Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5-106 (West, Westlaw through end of of the 2014 Second Second Reg. Sess.) Sess.) . . . . . . . 13 Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-13-105 (West, Westlaw through end of of the 2014 Second Second Reg. Sess.) Sess.) . . . . . . . 14 Tenn. Code Ann. § 30-2-102 (West, Westlaw through end of of the 2014 Second Second Reg. Sess.) Sess.) . . . . . . .12 . 12 Tenn. Code Ann. § 31-2-104 (West, Westlaw through 2014 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) Sess.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Tenn. Code Ann. § 31-4-101 (West, Westlaw through end of of the 2014 Second Second Reg. Sess.) Sess.) . . . . . . .12 . 12 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-115 (West, Westlaw through 2014 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) Sess.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 .6 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121 (West, Westlaw through end of of the 2014 Second Second Reg. Sess.) Sess.) . . . . . . . 15

 

xvii Cited Authorities  Page

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-101 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Tenn. Code Ann. §3636-5-701 5-701 to 713, 36-5 36 -5-801 -801 to 81 816, 6, 36  55-901 901 to 912 (West, Westlaw through 2014 2014)) . . . . . . . 17 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101 (West, Westlaw through end of of the 2914 Second Second Reg. Reg. Sess.) . . . . . . . 16 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(A)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(10) (West, Westlaw through end of of the 2014 2014 Second Reg. Reg. Sess.) . . . . . . . . 8 Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-303 (West, Westlaw through end of of the 2014 2014 Second Reg. Reg. Sess.) . . . . . . .12 . 12 Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-1-109 (West, Westlaw through 2014) 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 . 21 Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-8-305 (West, Westlaw through 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-30-109(b)(3) (West, Westlaw through 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-30-307 (West, Westlaw through end of of the 2014 2014 Second Reg. Reg. Sess.) . . . . . . .12 . 12 Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-36-109 8- 36-109 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through the end of the 2014 Second Reg. Session) . . . . . . . . .13

 

xviii Cited Authorities  Page

Tenn. Code Ann. A nn. §§ 36-6 36 -6-1 -106(a), 06(a), 36-6-101 36- 6-101(a (a)(2)(A)(i )(2)(A)(i)) (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) Sess.) . . .8 .8 Tenn. Code Ann. §68-3-306 (West, Westlaw through 2014 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) Sess.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 .6 Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-4-111(a) (West, Westlaw    through end of the 201 2014 4 Second Reg. Sess.) . . . . . . . 14 Tenn. Const. art. XI, Sec. 18 and Tenn. Code  An  A n n. § 36 - 3 -11 -113 3 ( Wes Westt , Wes Westl tl aw t h ro roug ugh h end of the 2014 2014 Second Reg. Reg. Sess.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 .4 OTHER AUTHORITIES

2004 Mich. Att’y Gen. Op. No. 7160 (Sept. 14, 2004). . . .6 Charlotte J. Patterson, Children of Lesbian and Gay  Parents, 63 Child Develop. Develop. 1025, 1037 (1992) (1992) . . . . . . .8 .8 Letter from Dayna K. Shah, Assoc. Gen. fi

Counsel, General Accounting ce, to Hon. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Of  Leader, at 1 (No. GAOGAO-0404-353R 353R Jan. 23, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 REVENUE RULINGS

Rev.. Rul. 2013-17, Rev 2013-17, 2013-3 2013-38 8 I.R.B. 201 . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-20

 

1  INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE INTEREST

 The interest of  Amicus Curi Curiae ae1  in this case is the protection of access to justice for same-sex couples who  wish to marr ma rry y or to have their marr m arriages iages recogni re cognized, zed, or  who wish w ish to adopt childr children, en, as well as the protection of the children of same-sex same- sex couples. This brief is submitted to highlight the impact of this Court’s decision on Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee residents and their children. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (“AAML”) is a national organization of more than 1,600 family law attorneys throughout the United States. The Michigan Chapter of the AAML A AML has 41 Fellows, Fellows, the Ohio Chapter of the AAML has 47 Fellows, and the Kentucky Chapter of the AAML has 24 Fellows, all of whom concentrate concen trate their practice in family fam ily law and have met the requirements for admission to the AAML. Currently there are 13 Fellows in Tennessee, who are not af filiated  with a state chapter. c hapter. 1. This brief does not necessari necessarily ly reflect the views of any  judge who is a member of the A AM AML. L. No infe inference rence should be drawn that any judge who is a member of the Academy participated in the preparation of this brief or reviewed reviewe d it before its submission. The AA ML does not represent a party in this matter, is receiving no compensation for acting as amicus, and has done so  pro bon bono o  publico  publi co. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no such counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person other than the amici, or their counsel, made a monetary contribution intended to fund its preparation or submission. The respondents have fi led blanket waivers with the Court consenting to the submission of all amicus briefs. The Petitioners’ consents are submitted herewith.

 

2 Membership quali fications for prospective Fellows are rigorous: each Fellow has demonstrated signi ficant experience with w ith complex complex family law cases and is recognized recogniz ed by the bench and his or her peers as a “preeminent family law practitioner with a high level of knowledge, skill and integrity.” In states that do not have family law certification, including Michigan, Michiga n, the applicant must pass a written and oral examination. The AAML AA ML was founded in 1962 to “provide leadership that promotes the highest degree of professionalism and excellence in the practice of family law.” The AAML sponsors continuing legal education courses course s for members and non-members, and has published handbooks and articles in sup support port of marriage mar riage and parenting, including the Model Parenting Plan Pla n; Making Marri Marriage age Last; The Voices of Children During Divorce: A Client Handbook;  and Stepping Back from Anger: Protecting Your Children Children  During  Dur ing Divorc Divorcee. The AAML participates as an amicus only if doing so would “encourage the study, improve the practice, elevate the standards and advance the course of matrimonial law, law, to the end that the welfare of the family and society be preserved.” In 2004, the AAML adopted a resolution and policy in support of same-sex marriage, and supporting “legislation authorizing marriage between same-sex couples who marry. . . and the extension of all legal rights and obligations of spouses and children to samesex couples.” The AAML adopted a resolution in 2012 in favor of the proposed Respect Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 (S.598, (S .598, 112th Cong. (2011) and H.R. H .R. 1116, 112th Cong.

 

3 (2011)) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, 2 to ensure (2011)) respect for state regulation of of marriage, marr iage, and to eliminate elim inate the discriminatory effect of the Defense of Marriage Marriage Act. The AAML has previously filed amicus briefs in support of marriage for same-sex couples in Maryland (Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007)), Missouri ( In  In Re the Marriage of of M.S. v. D.S., No. SC94101 (pending) (Missouri 2015); Iowa ( Varnum v. Brien, 763 N. N.W W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009)), California ( In  In re Marriage Marr iage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008)), Virginia ( B  Bottoms ottoms v. Bottoms, 457 S.E.2d 102 (Va. 1995)), and the Supreme Court of the United States ( Hollingsworth  Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013)). The AAML has been granted consent by counsel for petitioners in each of the four cases to file its brief as Amicus Curiae in support of petitioners. A Notice of Consentt has been or will Consen wil l be fi led with the Court on behalf of AAML A AML and other amici am ici in support of petitioners. petitioners. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In all of family fa mily law, the most universally accepted goal is to promo promote te the best interests of children. Historically Historical ly,, the recognizes that the best ways to achieve this two end are law for children to have permanent legal bonds with parents, and to ensure continuity of care in a stable home environment. These concerns are inextricably bound to the institution of marriage. Marriage is not only a fundamental funda mental constitutional constitut ional right, a joy, joy, and a commitment: it is also one of the most powerful ways to secure for children childr en the bene benefit of hundreds of laws intended to protect families. 2. 1 U.S.C. § 7 (2012).

 

4  When a law act actively ively under undermine miness the very polic policies ies that it was designed to promote, it lacks a ration rational al basis. 3  The state constitutional amendments and related statutes currently in effect in the states of the Sixth Circuit 4 (the “State DOMAs”) purport pur port to promote stability for children and the benefits of marriage for future generations. In fact, the State DOMAs undermine the very values they seek to protect. They stigmatize children of same-sex unions, foster unpredictabl u npredictablee and inconsistent outcomes for families at critical times in their lives, and deny children of same-sex unions the continuity and financial protections that the law affords to children of legally recognized marriages. This brief will discuss the ways that family law addresses these issues and how the same-sex marriage bans in the states of the Sixth Circuit undermine the interests of children.

3. Petitioners argue that an elevated standard of review, rather than a “rational basis” test, should apply. apply. Amici agree with w ith this position but contend that even under a rational basis test, the State DOMAs fail. 4. Ky. Const. Const. § 233A 233 A and Ky. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.005 402 .005,, 402.020, 402 .020, 402.040, 402.0 40, and 40 2.045 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014 legislation); legislation); Mich. Const. art. 1, § 25 2 5 and Mich. Comp. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.1 (West, ( West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014); Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11 and Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3101.01 (West, Westlaw through 2014); Tenn. Const. art. XI, Sec. 18 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113 (West, Westlaw through end of the 2014 Second Reg. Sess.).

 

5 ARGUMENT I.

The State DOMA laws deny same-sex families the benefits of laws that enhance stability. A.

The State DOMA laws stigmatize children of same-sex unions and deny them the protection of legal recognition for both their parents.

Marriage is a valuable legal and social institution that provides an avenue for children to establish legal ties with their two parents. Social science research and jurisprudence both accept as fundamental truth that children are best off when they have secure and permanent bonds with both of their parents.  See  In re  Mark T., 154 N.W.2d 27, 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967);  Davi  Daviss v. Flickinger , 674 N.E.2d 1159 (Ohio 1997); Test. of David Brodzinsky Brodzinsk y, Feb. Feb. 2, 2014; Brodzinsk Brodzinsky y Expert Report, Report , ECF No. 171-1. Not only are psychological bonds critical to a child’s healthy development ( See  See Argument I(B I(B), ), infra), inf ra),  but legal bonds, too, are profoundly important. Having two parents whose status is legally recognized has major practical implications for a child. It provides two sources of enforceable financial support, thereby preserving public resources; creates linesand of inheritance through two families; creates stability predictability if one parent dies or the parents separate; and provides other practical advantages such as two parents to consent to medical treatment or participate in decisio decisions ns relating to education and school activities. One of the most effective means to secure recognition recog nition as a legal parent is through the institution of marriage. Marriage provides several avenues to legal parentage.

 

6 There is a longstanding presumption that a child born during a marriage is the legal child of both spouses. 5  Either parent in a legal marriage may pursue a step-parent step-pa rent 6 adoption of the other’s child.   In some states, if legally married, both parents together may adopt.7 If a married couple pursues assisted reproduction with consent of the husband, their child is deemed the issue of the husband. 8   Any of these the se mechanism me chanismss affords a ffords the childr c hildren en of a legal lega l marriage the benefit of two legal parents. In the Sixth Circuit, the State DOMAs deny samesex parents these avenues to legal recognition. If neither parent is biologically related to a child and both wish to adopt, under Michigan law, only one of the two partners may do so. 9 In other Sixth Circuit states, absent a legal 5.  M  Michael ichael H. v Gerald D., 109 S. Ct 2333, 2343 (1989). Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552.29; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.03 (a); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 406.011;  Evans v. Steelm S teelman an, 970 S.W.2d 431, 433 (Tenn. 1998). 6. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 199.500, 199.520 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. A nn. § 710.51 (West, Westlaw through 2014); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3107.03 (West, Westlaw through 130th 130 th GA (2013-2014 (2013-2 014)); )); Tenn. Tenn. Code Ann. A nn. § 36-136 -1-115 115 (West,  Westlaw through th rough 2014 2 014 Second Reg. Re g. Sess.); Sess .); S.J.L.S  S.J.L.S.. v. T.L.S., 265 S.W.3d 804 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008). 7. Ohio Rev. Rev. Code Ann. § 3107.03 3107.03 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 130th GA (2013-2014)); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.24 (West,  Westlaw through th rough 2014). 8. Ohio Rev. Rev. Code Ann. § 3111.95 3111.95 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 130th GA (2013-2014)); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §333.2824(6) (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014); 2014); Tenn. Code Ann. §68 -3- 306 (Wes ( West, t,  Westlaw through th rough 2014 Second Se cond Reg. Sess.). S ess.). 9.  In re Adams , 473 N.W.2d N.W.2d 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991); 2004 Mich. Att’y Gen. Op. No. 7160 (Sept. 14, 2004).

 

7 marr iage, a same-sex partner cannot file for a step-parent marriage, adoption.10 Compared to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have have fewer ways to secure a permanent per manent legal bond  with their t heir children; ch ildren; and a nd the children chi ldren are a re the losers. lose rs. By barring same-sex parents from marrying, the State DOMAs burden children with the stigma of growing up in a family that the law refuses to acknowledge as “worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages.” United States v. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2692, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 8 08 (2013). (2013). The State DOMAs send a message that in a same-sex union, the parent who lacks legal status is unworthy of respect under the law, and that the family unit itself does not deserve recognition.  As this t his Court Cou rt has ha s put it, the t he unequal unequa l treatment treat ment of samesex marriage marr iage “… “… humiliates humiliate s tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. …” and “... makes it even more dif ficult for the children to understand the integrity and a nd closeness of their own family and its concord  with other famil fa milies ies in their thei r community and a nd in their daily lives.” United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2694, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2013). B.

The State DOMA laws deny legal protections for established parent-child relationships.

The most serious consequence to children when a same-sex union ends is the potential destruction of a parent-child relationship. Social science research overwhelmingly demonstrates the risk of long-term 10.  S.J.L.S  S.J.L.S.. v T.L.S .L.S., ., 265 S.W.3d (Ct. App. Ky. 2008);  In re  Adoption  Adopt ion of Doe, 719 N.E.2d 107 (Oh. 1998); In re Shelb Shelby y L.B. No. M2010-00879 M201000879-COA-R9-PT, -COA-R9-PT, 2011 WL 1225567, Tenn. Ct. App 2011). 2011).

 

8 psychological damage to a child when the relationship  with a parenta parentall figure is severed.11 Children of same-sex unions are all too often exposed to this harm when a legally recognize recog nized d parent (or (or a child’s blood relatives, if the parent has died) contests custody and the other partner lacks recognition as a legal parent. In family law cases, the state’s paramount concern is the best interest of the child. 12  In defining that best interest,, one of the most important factors interest fact ors is the continuity of the established custodial environment, where “over an appreciable appr eciable period of time the child chi ld naturally looks to the custodian in such environment environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life and parental comfort.” 13 So important is 11.  See   Brodzinsky Expert Report, ECF 171-1, at 4934: ¶ 26(a) 26 (a)..  See also Charlotte J. Patterson, Children of Lesbian and Gay  Parents , 63 Child Develop. 1025, 1037 (1992) (severing the parentchild bond between a child and a functional parent “can cause [the child] extreme distress”). 12. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.270 403.2 70 (West, (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 722.23, 722.24 (West, Westlaw through 2014 2 014); ); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. An n. §§ 3109.04, 3109.051(D 3109.0 51(D)) (West,  Westlaw through th rough 130th 130 th GA (2013(2013-2014) 2014)); ); Tenn. Code Ann. A nn. §§ § § 3636 6-106(a), 36-6-101(a)(2)(A)(i) (West, Westlaw through 2014 Second Reg. Sess.); Burchel  Burchelll v. Burchell , 684 S.W.2d 296 (Ky. App. 1984);  Harvey v. Harvey Harve y, 680 N.W. 2d 835 (Mich. 2004);  In re Mark T., 154 N.W N.W.2d 27 2 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967);  Birch v. Birch Birch,, 463 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio 1984); Whitaker v. Whitaker , 957 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). 13. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann Ann.. §§ 722 722.27(1)( .27(1)(c), c), 722. 23(d)-(e) (West, Westlaw through 2014); see also  Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403. 270(2) (West, Westlaw through end of the 2014 legislation); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.051(A) (West, Westlaw through th rough 2014); Tenn. Code Ann. Ann . § 36 -6 -1 -106(a)(1 06(a)(10) 0) (West, Westlaw through end of

 

9 this concept of continuity that Michigan Mich igan law, for for example, requires clear and convincing evidence—the highest standard of civil proof 14—to amend a court cour t order if it would change a child’ child’ss established custodial environmen environment. t.  Id.  Wi th le  With lega ga l pa re rent nts, s, an es estt ab abll is ishe hed d re rela lati tion onsh sh ip between parent and child is constitutionally protected. Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979);  Stan  Stanley ley v.  Illinois , 405 U.S. 645, 651 6 51-52 -52 (1972) (discuss (discussing ing biological father’s constitutionally constitutionally protected interest in parent-child parent-ch ild relationship). But the Sixth Circuit states do not extend this same respect for the parent-child bond to same-sex parents who lack legal parenthood parenthood.. In Kentucky and Ohio, same-sex partners par tners may have standing to seek custody but even if they succeed in establishing the right to pursue custody, their rights are still subordinate to those of a fully recognized legal parent.  Mul  Mullin linss v. Pic Pickl kles esim imer  er , 317 S.W.3d 569 (Ky. 2010);  In re Mulle Mullen, n,   953 N.E.2d 302 (Ohio 2011). 15  In some circumstances, a non-legal parent lacks standing to protect his or her relationship with the child, as exempli fied in  State ex rel. rel . M.L.G. v. Montgom Montgomery ery, Nos. 12AP-13, 12AP-401 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2012), appeal the 2014 Second Reg. Sess.); Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer  Gra smeyer , 675 N. N.W.2d W.2d 847, 852-53 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). 14.  Hunter v. Hunter , 771 N.W N.W.2d 694, 69 4, 705- 06 (Mich. 2009). 2 009). 15.  See also In  In re D.C.J. D.C.J. 976 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012),  In re Perale Peraless, 369 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 1977) (non-parent seeking custody must show that the legal parent is unsuitable or that the relationship with the legal parent is detrimental to the child). chi ld). See also Ohio Rev. Code Ann. An n. § 3109.051, 3111.03(A)(1) 3111.03(A)(1) (West, Westlaw through 2014); Tenn. Code A nn. § 36- 6-101 6-101(a (a)(2)(A)(i) )(2)(A)(i)..

 

10 denied, 981 N.E.2d 885 (Ohio 2013), where a non-legal parent lacked standing standi ng to contest or even receive notice of her child’s adoption by her former partner’s new spouse.

In Michigan and Tennessee, the non-legal parent has even fewer rights than in Kentucky and Ohio. In these states, the non-legal parent must overcome major legal hurdles to protect the relationship with his/her child— even a child whom he/she has raised since birth.  See, e.g.,   McGuf  fin v. Overton, 542 N.W.2d N.W.2d 288, 28 8, 289-92 289 -92 (Mich. Ct.  App. 1995) (same sex par partner tner lacked stand standing ing to seek custody of children she had co-parented for years);  In re Anjoski, 770 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (legal father’s widow, with whom child lived, lacked standing to contest mother’s custody after death of father );  In re Thompson , 11 S.W.3d 913, 917-18 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (same-sex partner who is not a legal parent lacks standing to seek visitation of child she co-parented). In Michigan, even where the non-legal parent can establish standing, the non-legal parent must prove by clear and convincing evidence evidence that an award of custody to the legal parent is not in the child’s best interests. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.25(1) (West, Westlaw through 2014);    Hunter v. Hunter , 771 N.W.2d 694, 705-06 (Mich. 2009);   Heltzel v. Heltzel, 638 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). In Tennessee, a court must find that the biologica biologicall parent is unfit.  Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.3d 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (given the superior rights of natural parents over third parties, court cannot deny custody to biological parent unless he or she is found un fit); Doles v. Doles,  84  848 8 S.W.2d S.W.2d 656 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (right of parent is superior in custody dispute between parent and third thi rd party).

In the absence of legally recognized parentage, courts are often precluded from protecting or even considering

 

11 children’s need for continuity. Regardless of the best interests of the child, and regardless of the child’s established custodial environment, courts often cannot protect the parent-child parent-chi ld relationship relationship because the t he non-legal parent either lacks standing to seek parental rights or is unable to meet the daunting evidentiary burdens imposed in such situations. The child in these circumstances is denied the right to remain with w ith the adult who is that child’s parent in every sense but legally. C.

The State DOMA laws deny legal protection to same-sex families when a partner dies.

 When a spouse in an opposite-sex opposite -sex marr ma rriage iage dies, the surviving survivi ng spouse and family enjoy numerous protections protections to maintain continuity and protect them economically. Because these benefits depend on a legal marriage, they are unavailable to families fami lies of same-sex couples who cannot marry. A surviving surv iving spouse has the rights: • to inherit from a deceased spouse who who dies without a will, wi ll, Ky. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. An n. § 391.030 ( West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.2102 700. 2102 (West, Westlaw through 2014 2 014); ); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §014) 2105.06 ( WCode (W est, Westlaw through 130th GA (2013-201 (2013-2 4)); ); Tenn. A nn. § 31-2-1 Ann. 31-2-104 04 (W (W est,  Westlaw  W estlaw through t hrough 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) • to elect against a spouse’ spouse’ss will and receive a legally guaranteed gua ranteed share sha re of the estate, Ky Ky. Rev. Rev. Stat. Ann. Ann . § 392.080 392.0 80 (W ( West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation); legislation); Mich Comp. Laws §§ 700.2202, 700.2301 (West,  West la law w th ro roug ugh h 20 2014); 14); Oh Ohio io Re Rev. v. Co Code de A nn nn.. § 2106.01 (West, Westlaw through 130th GA (2013-

 

12 2014)); Tenn. Code Ann. 2014)); A nn. § 31-4-1 31-4 -101 01 (West, Westlaw through end of the 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) • to remain in the family home and receive an allowance from the estate, free of creditors’ claims,  while the estate is being settled, Ky. Rev Rev.. Stat. Stat. Ann. § 391.030 (W ( West, Westlaw through 201 2 014 4 legislation) legisl ation);; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 700.2402-2404 (West,  West la law w th ro roug ugh h 2 014); Oh Ohio io Re Rev. v. Co Code de A nn . § 2106.15 (West, Westlaw through 130th GA (20132014)); 2014 )); Tenn. Tenn. Code Ann. A nn. § 30-2-102 30 -2-102 (West, Westlaw through end of the 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) • to receive death benefits under Workers’ Compensation law, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.750 (West, Westlaw through the end of the 2014 legislation); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 418.331 (West, Westlaw through 201 2 014); 4); Ohio Rev. Rev. Code Ann. An n. § 4123.59 (West, Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014)); Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-303 (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through end of the 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) • to receive Social Social Security death bene benefits, 42 U.S.C U.S.C.. § 1395i-2 (2012) (lump sum death bene fit); 42 U.S.C. fi

§ 402(g), (d) (2012) (parent bene ts) • to receive Veteran’s bene fits, 38 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1317 (spousal death bene fits), 1158 (disappearance benefits) (2012); Ky. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann Ann.. § 18A.150 18A .150 (2), (3) (West, Westlaw through 2014) (spousal preference in employment); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5901.08 (West, Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014) (financial assistance to spouse); Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-30-307 (West, Westlaw through end of the

 

13 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) (spousal preference in employment) • to receive retirement survivor benefits, 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (2012) (ERISA quali fied plans); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. A nn. § 38.1024(1 38.1024(1), ), (8) (West, Westlaw through 2014)) (Michigan 2014 (Michiga n state civil civi l services); serv ices); Ohio Rev. Rev. Code  Ann.. § 145.45, 92 (West, Westlaw  Ann Westlaw through the 130th  GA (2013-2014)) (2013-2014));; Tenn. Code Ann. An n. § 8-36 8 -36-1 -109 09 (W ( West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through the end of the 2014 Second Reg. Session) • to file a wrongful death claim, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.130 (West, Westlaw through 2014); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2922(2)(a) (West, Westlaw through 2014); 2014); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2125.02 2125.0 2 (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through th rough the 130th GA (2013-2014 (2013- 2014)); )); Tenn. Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-5 20 -5-1 -106 06 (W ( West, Westlaw through through end of the 2014 Second Reg. Sess.); and • to inherit an unlimited estate from a spouse free of Federal and State inheritance taxes, 26 U.S.C. § 2056 (2012); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 140.080 (West,  Westlaw  W estlaw through 2014) 2014);; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann Ann.. § 205 .202 205.20 2 (West, Westlaw throughWestlaw 2014); Ohio Rev. Rev. Code Ann. § 5731.05(C)(4)(West, through the 130th GA (2013-2014)); Tenn. Code Ann. § 678-305 (West, Westlaw through 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) (For (For transfers between spouses, only one half hal f of the value of the account or property is i s considered a taxable transfer). These benefits leave families of legally married couples more financially secure, when one spouse dies, than families famil ies of same-sex couples who cannot marry.

 

14 In addition to these economic protections, a legal spouse may make medical decisions for a spouse, including decisions about organ donation and, in some states, state s, other 16 medical matters;  make burial arrangemen ar rangements; ts;17 or consent to a post-mortem exam.18  A legal spouse may recover benefits when a spouse is the victim of a crime. 19  All of these rights provide financial security and comfort, and preserve some semblance of dignity and order at a time  when the family most needs it. Same-sex couples couples and their 16. Ky Ky.. Rev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 311.1925 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014) (posthumous organ donation); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2108.09 2108 .09 (West, Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014)) (2013-2014)) (posthumous organ donation); Tenn. Code Ann. § 6868-30-109(b)(3) 30-109(b)(3) (West, (West, Westlaw through 2014 Second Reg. Sess.) (posthumous organ donation);   Whaley v. Cnty. of Saginaw, 941 F. Supp. 1483, 1491 (E.D. Mich. 1996) 17. Ky 17. Ky.. Rev. Stat. Ann. An n. § 367.97 367.97501 501 (West, Westlaw through the end of the 2014 legislation); legislation); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.3206 700. 3206 (West, Westlaw through 2014); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2108.81 (West, Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014));  Est  Estes es v. Woodlawn Memorial Park, Inc., 780 S.W S .W.2d .2d 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). 18. Ky Ky.. Rev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 72.42 72.425 5 (West, (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.285 333. 2855 5 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2108.50(A), 2108.5 0(A), 2108.81 2108. 81 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014)); (2013-2014)); Tenn. Tenn. Code A nn. § 6 88-4-111 4-111(a (a)) (West, Westlaw through end of the 2014 Second Reg. Sess.). 19. Ky Ky.. Rev. Rev. Stat. An n. § 346 .050 (1)(b) (West, Westlaw Westlaw through the end of the 2014 legislation); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 780.766(4)(h) (West, Westlaw through 2014); Ohio Rev. Code  Ann.  An n. § 2743. 2743.51 51 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through thr ough the 130th GA (2013-2014)) (dependent (depend ent of victim is i s claimant for victim’s vict im’s benefits); Tenn. Code  Ann.  An n. § 29 -13-105 (West, Westlaw through t hrough end of the 2014 Second Secon d Reg. Sess.).

 

15 children enjoy none none of these protections protect ions under the current law. After the death of a same-sex partner, the survivor may find him/herself homeless, financially cut off, and locked in conflict with third parties over parenting time or custody. The children suffer the consequences. D.

The State DOMA laws deny same-sex couples couples the benefit of laws that protect families when couples separate.

 When legally legal ly married marr ied couples end their relationship, the divorce process is governed by a well-established body of law concerning property division, spousal support, supp ort, custody, parenting time, and child chi ld support. support. This comprehensive legal framework provides predictability and promotes stability. Parties have access to court guidance to assure an equitable division of property and income, 20   and to protect the best interests of the 20. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.190 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through the end of the 2014 legislation) (division of property); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. An n. § 403. 200 (West, ( West, Westlaw Westlaw through the end of the 2014 legislation) (spousal support); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 557.204 (West, Westlaw through 2014) (equal rights to property); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 552.19, 552.23, 552.103 (West, Westlaw through 2014) (property division); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 722.27(a), 552.23, 552.601 (West, Westlaw through 2014) (spousal support); support); Mich. Comp. Laws A nn. § 552.18 (West, ( West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014) (pension bene fits); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.171 (West, Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014)) (division of property); propert y); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.18 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through th rough the 130th GA (2013-2014)) (2013-2014)) (spousal support); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Ann . § 3105.821 (West, Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014)) (public retirement benefits); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121 (West,  Westlaw through t hrough end of the t he 2 014 Second Reg. Sess.) S ess.) (divi (division sion of property).

 

16 children. 21  A divorcing spouse has a right to share in property accumulated during the marriage even if it is titled in the other spouse’s name. 22 Divorcing spouses can divide property, including retirement bene fits, without tax consequ consequence. ence. 23 Same-sex couples do not enjoy the protections of this legal framework when their relationships end. A samesex partner par tner does not have the right to alimony ali mony and has no right to share in the other partner’s par tner’s retirement retirement benefits or other lifelong accumulation of property, even if he/she  was a dependent homemaker who stayed home to raise the children and bolster the other partner’s career. If, despite the absence of any law compelling a property division, separating same-sex partners can agree to t o divide property, the transfers are not exempt from taxation. 21. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.213 (West, Westlaw through the end of the 2014 legislation) (child support); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 403.270, 403.280, 403.290, 403.300 (West, Westlaw through the end of the 2014 legislation); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722 .27 ( West,  Westlaw thro through ugh 2014) (par (parenting enting time and chi child ld suppor t); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552. 5 52.23 23 ( West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014 2 014)) (support); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.2(c) (West, Westlaw through 2014) (parents’ right to custody); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.21, 3119.01 (West, Westlaw through the 130th GA (2013-2014)) (child support); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36 -6 -10 -101 1 (West, Westlaw through end of the 2914 Second Reg. Sess.)(custody Sess.)(custody and support). Child custody and child support statutes also govern unmarried couples who are legally recognized recogn ized as parents; pa rents; but as noted in Sections I(A) and (B) (B) above, for many same-sex parents, the rights and obligations of legal parentage are unavailable without the ability to marry.

22. See Note 20, supra. 23. 26 U.S.C. § 1041 1041 (2012); (2012); Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 26 U.S.C. § 414(p) (2012); 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3) (2012).

 

17 Instead of predictability, same-sex partners and their children are left mired in uncertainty uncert ainty and expense. Even when separated, legally recognized parents have a duty to support their children. 24 State and Federal law provide powerful mechanisms to enforce these support obligations. 25  But since the support obligation is tied to legal parentage, and the State DOMAs render marriage unavailable to same-sex partners as a means to achieve this legal recognition, this often oft en leaves children of samesex unions without a right to support from both parents. If the non-legal parent is the breadwinner, this can be fi nancially devastating for the children.  Without the legal framework that governs dissolution of marriages, when same-sex coup couples les separate, they are forced into an unpredictable and often chaotic transition that denies them, and their children, the consistency, stability and financial security that t hat family law is intend intended ed to promote.

24. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.210 403. 210 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014); 2014 ); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 552 .1 .17a 7a (West, Westlaw through 2014); Ohio Rev. Code Ann § 3109.03, 3109.05 (West, Westlaw through 2013-2014); 2013-2014); Tenn. Code Ann. An n. § 36 -5 -5-1 -101 01 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014). 25.  See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat Ann. §§ 403.211, 403.215 (West,  Westlaw throug t hrough h 2014); Mich. Mich . Comp. Laws La ws Ann. A nn. §§ 552. 5 52.60 603, 3, 552. 5 52. 27 (West, Westlaw through 2014); Ohio Rev. Code Ann §§ 2705.02, 2705.03, 3123.01 to 99 (West, Westlaw through 2013-2014); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5 -70 -701 1 to 713, 36-5 -801 to 816, 36-5- 901 to 912 (West, (West,  Westlaw throug t hrough h 2014); 42 4 2 U.S.C. U.S .C. § 660 6 60 (2 012).

 

18 II. Even in intact same-sex households, the State State DOMA laws deny legal protections for family financial security.

The harm to families caused by the State DOMAs is not limited to times of crisis cr isis such as the death of a partner or the end of a couple’s relationship. Even in the conduct of their daily activities and financial affairs, same-sex couples and their children are denied hundreds of legal protections protectio ns that are available to legally married mar ried families. These protections contribute to the security of families, but without the right to marry, same-sex parents and their children lose out.  In overturning part of the Defense Defense of Marriage Act, Act , 1 U.S.C. § 7 (2012), (2012), this Court recognized the harm har m that couples les and their children from f rom denial flows to same-sex coup of such benefits: It prevents same-sex married couples from obtaining government healthcare bene fits they  would otherwise other wise receive . . . . It deprives depr ives them of the Bankruptcy Bankruptc y Code’s special protections prote ctions for domestic-support obligations. . . . It forces them fi

to follow complicated procedure to prohibits le their state and afederal taxes jointly. . . . It them from being buried together in veterans’ cemeteries. . . . It raises the t he cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. . . . And it denies or reduces bene fits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

 

19 United States v. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2694-95 2694- 95 (2013) (2013) (citations omitted).

 Among the mainst mainstays ays of of this nation’s nation’s social safety net are the health, retirement reti rement and other protections provided by Social Security, Secu rity, Medicar Medicare, e, Medicaid, and the Veterans  Admi  Ad mini nist strat ration. ion. Feder Federal al and st stat atee ta x cod codes es cont contai ain n numerous provisions that benefit families. In many cases, such benefits are availabl availablee to legally married ma rried spouses but not to same-sex couples who cannot marry. For example, ity y Re Retir tir em emen entt Ben ef efit itss: A lower •  Soc ia l Sec ur it earning spouse may claim retirement or disability benefits equal to half the higher-earning spouse’s entitlement, and may qualify for Medicare based on the other spouse’s work record. 42 U.S.C. §§ 402 (b), 402(c), 402(c), 426-1, 426 -1, 1395i-2 (2012). (2012). A survivi sur viving ng spouse may under many circumstances collect a deceased spouse’s higher retirement benefit. 42 U.S.C. § 402 (e), (f) (2012). These bene fits are critical for dependent spouses who may not have accrued suf ficient work credits of their own. Without the ability to share bene fits earned by a higher-paid partner, same-sex couples are less free than

married to divide family responsibilities between spouses breadwinner and homemaker; they must either divert resources during their child-rearing years to provide for their retirement or depend on their children for support in their old age. Either  way,, the children  way ch ildren suffer a lifelong disadvantage di sadvantage.. •  Inc  Incom omee Tax Taxes: es: Same-sex partners who cannot legally marry must file separate state and Federal income tax returns. Rev. Rul. 2013-17, 2013-38

 

20 I.R.B. 201; see, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 141.180 (West, Westlaw through 2014); Mich. Comp. Laws  Ann.. § 206  Ann 206.311 .311 (West, (West, Westlaw Westlaw through 2014); 2014); Ohio Rev. Code Sec. 5747.08(E). This creates needless complication and expense for couples who may have otherwise merged their finances, and it may sometimes create an added tax burden. • Veterans’ Bene fits:  Disabled veterans are entitled to increased increa sed compensation if they have a spouse. 38 U.S.C. § 1115 (2012). (2012). Veterans’ spouses may receive r eceive education assistance, 38 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012); job counseling and placement services, ser vices, 38 U.S.C. § 4101 4101 (2012); and medical care, 38 U.S.C. § 1781 (2012). Same-sex partners of veterans who cannot marry receive none of these bene fits. • Taxation of Bene fits: Even when they do receive health care benefits, same-sex couples pay more than married mar ried couples because they are not afforded the same favorable treatment under Federal tax laws. United States v. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2694 (2013). •  Spousa  Spousal l Protection Prot ections s from f rom Medicaid Spen Spend-Down d-Down  Requirem  Requ irem ents ent s for Lon Longg- Term Care Car e: When one spouse requires government assistance for longterm care, the other spouse is entitled to various safeguards that protect the family home and preserve other resources that would otherwise have to be “spent “spent down” to qualify qualif y for assistance. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396p(c)(2), 1396p(c)(2), 1396p(a 1396 p(a)(2), )(2), 1396r-5(f)(2)(A), 1396r- 5(f)(2)(A), 1396r-5(d)(3) (2012). Same-sex partners, without these protections, may face insolvency when a partner needs long-term care.

 

21 Federal programs and favorable tax treatment are not the only bene fits denied to same-sex couples. Samesex couples who cannot marry are denied other economic advantages as well: Empl pl o ye yeee Be n ef it s: Michigan’s State •  Pu bl ic Em DOMA denied same-sex public employees access to employment benefits that were routinely offered to legally married marr ied couples. couples. N  Nationa ationall Pride at Work v. Governor of Michigan ,  748 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 2008) (holding that public employers may not offer healthcare benefits to same-sex partners). 26   See als also o Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§145.45, 145.384 (West, Westlaw through 130 th   GA (2013-2014) (spousal retirement benefits and spousal consent requirements).

•  Entireties Property: In a number of states, married spouses have the right to hold property by the entireties, Tkachik v. Mandeville, 790 N. N.W W.2d 260, 265 (Mich. 2010); are entitled to share equally in the control and income from that property, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. An n. § 557.71 (West, Westlaw Westlaw through th rough 2014); 2014 ); and enjoy protections protections from f rom creditors that t hat are not available to unmarried joint tenants, v. Titus,   751 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 2008).  See  Estes also Ky. Rev. Stat. Stat. Ann. A nn. § 381.050(2) 381.050 (2) (West, (West, Westlaw through 2014); Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-1-109 (West, Westlaw 26. Ultimately, the state health plan was amended to solve solve this problem. See Attorne  Atto rney y General Gener al v. Civil Service Serv ice Commission Commis sion   (unpublished), (unpub lished), 2013 WL 8580 85805 5 (Ct. App. Mich. 2013) (subsequent (subsequent amendments to State Health Plan permitted coverage.)  See also al so  Bassett v Snyder , _ __F.Su __F.Supp. pp. 3d__ _, 2014 WL 5847607 (E.D.Mich, Nov.. 12, Nov 12 , 2014).

 

22 through 2014) 2014).. 27 Same Same-sex sex couples do not have these protections. These are but a few examples of the hundreds of ways in which a ban on same-sex marriage visits tangible tang ible and signi ficant economic harm on families. The Government  Accounting  Accounti ng Of fice has identi fied 1,138 Federal benefits that flow to legally recognized spouses, and that are unavailable to same-sex partners who cannot legally marry. Perry v. Schwartzenegger , 704 F. F. Supp. 2d 921, 962 9 62 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 2010);; see Letter from Dayna K. Shah, Assoc. A ssoc. Gen. Counsel, General Accounting Of fice, to Hon. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader, at 1 (No. GAO-04-353R Jan. 23, 2004). When a family is economically deprived, children suffer. Some same-sex coup couples les attempt to reduce the harsh impact of the state DOMAs by drafting protective legal documents. Health care proxies, powers of attorney,  wills,  wil ls, tru trusts, sts, beneficiary designations and guardianship appointments appointmen ts can approximate approximat e some of the protections that the law grants automatically to families of legally married couples. But these measures are expensive, and their protections are incomplete. See McGuf   McGuf  fin v. Overton, 214 Mich. 95, 542toN.W.2d 288 (1995) (same-sex lackedApp. standing challenge custody of legalpartner father despite despi te having a power of attorney and a will naming her as guardian). Institutions may or may not honor a power of attorney. A health care power of attorney or medical release may not be readily at hand during dur ing an emergency  where a part partner ner is cal called led upon to make a life or death decision. In Michigan, one partner’s Will may name the 27. Ohio does does not not recognize tenancies by the entirety. entirety.

 

23 other parent as guardian of their t heir children, but if the legal parent dies, the surviving parent may have to undergo close scrutiny in an a n often lengthy, expensive and intrusive court proceeding before being recognized as guardian; must submit to annual reviews; and any interested person per son may seek to remove remove that parent as guardian gua rdian at any time. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§700.5207(1), §§700.5207(1), 700.5209, 700.52 09, 700.5219 (West, Westlaw through 2014). Compare this to a legally married couple, where if the surviving spouse is a legal parent, his/her parental rights continue automatically and are very dif ficult to challenge. Further, for many of the most important spousal spousal rights such as tax ta x and social security benefits, there is no available workaround. For same-sex couples whose daily concerns are no different from any other couples—making a living, making a home for their families, raising ra ising their children— these complicated and expensive legal stop-gaps are no substitute for the comprehensive system of protections that the law guarantees, automatically and without sophisticated planning and legal paperwork, to families of legal marriages. The State DOMAs disadvantage children of samefi

sex couples,them compromising security relegating to a lesser their status, nancial based purely on and the circumstances of their birth. This Court has recognized for decades that children should not be punished simply because society disapproves of their parents’ relations: But visiting this condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. . . . Obviously, no child is responsible responsible for his birth and penalizing the illegitimate child is an ineffectual—as well

 

24 as an unjust—way of deterring the parent. Courts are powerless to prevent the social opprobrium opprob rium suffered suf fered by these hapless children, but the Equal Protection Clause does enable us to strike down discriminatory laws relating   to status of birth where—  where—as as in this case case—the —the classification is justi fied by no legitimate state interest, compelling or otherwise. Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 406 U.S. 164, 171, 175-76 (1972); see also  Levy v. Louis Louisiana iana , 391 U.S. 68 (1968).  Yet th thee St Stat atee DOM DOMA A s dep depri rive ve ch chil ildr dren en of sa same me-s -sex ex parents protections that are available to opposite-sex families solely because of their parentage. They punish the children of these families and rob them of security simply because they happen to have been born to parents  who, because of the State St ate DOMAs, DOMA s, do not have h ave the right r ight to marry marr y. CONCLUSION

Contrary to any intent to promote the welfare of children and stability of families, the State DOMAs harm same-sex couples and their children by denying them fi

the rights,married bene and protections enjoyed families of legally mar riedtsopposite-sex couples. Thesebylaws deny children of same-sex same- sex partners part ners the dignity dign ity,, predictability, predictability, continuity, and financial support to which they would be entitled if their parents were allowed to marry marr y. If samesex parents are able to marry, mar ry, they can access the avenues avenues to legal parentage that marriage mar riage makes possible; and all of the benefits that children derive from having two legal parents—support parents—suppo rt from f rom two parents, established lines of inheritance, economic protections, protections, and awards of custody

 

25 according to the same best-interest standards that app apply ly to all legal parents—will become more readily available to these families. There is no constitutionally justi fiable reason to deny these protections to same-sex sa me-sex couples in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, and to their children. Based on the above arguments and those of the opponents of the State DOMAs, the Amicus urges this Court to reverse the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Respectfully Submitted, DIANA  R  R AIMI BRIAN C. V ERTZ ERTZ*  A MERICAN MERICAN A CADEMY  CADEMY   OF M ATRIMO  ATRIMONIAL NIAL  L AWYERS 437 Grant Street, Suite 501 5 01 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 471-9000 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae

*Counsel of Record